LETTER: This fight not a waste of $2 Million
Published: Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Updated: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 16:01
To the editor:
Let us forget for a moment that the issue of same sex marriage was put on a ballot during the last state elections. Let us also forget that the majority of Utahns also voted in favor for defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Hence, the bill passed. Then let us forget that a judge decided anyway, regardless of the peoples’ voice, that denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, even though the people of Utah just voted to add Amendment 3 to the Utah constitution. So, the people added a statement to the constitution, by popular vote, and a judge then says that it isn’t constitutional? How can that be? We just put it in there.
So, forgetting all of that, let’s talk about what Mr. Christiansen said. Firstly, what is the Utah government really doing with $2 million? They will be fighting a single judge’s decision to overturn the constitution of the state without due process. Sounds like the Utah government is spending money to overthrow a corrupt judge.
Secondly, the article’s author claims there is no “medical, psychological or scientific evidence” stating that same-sex marriage is bad for the world. Wrong. Let’s start with the oldest evidence we have, the Holy Bible. Since this topic obviously involves religion, I do not hesitate to use religious resources in my argument. Remember the story of Sodom and Gomorra? Remember how it was a place avoided by just about the rest of the world? Remember that when two men dared to visit a friend, the citizens of Sodom tried to break down the door so they could have their way with the visitors? Remember that God finally had enough of it and rained fire down on the two cities, utterly destroying them? Why do you think we have a crime today called “sodomy?”
Thirdly, in reference to the state’s original settlers, the Mormon pioneers and the fact that they practiced polygamy. The author stated that these early Mormons believed that society should be founded on polygamy. This is incorrect. Latter-day Saints, A.K.A Mormons, have never believed society should be founded on polygamy. In instances of the church’s history, from Bible times all the way through the pioneer days, there have been an extreme…
few to practice polygamy. In all instances of polygamy — in the LDS church-including Biblical, Book of Mormon and present times — it has been guarded and protected as sacred and rare. Only the most pure and chaste of men were asked to take upon them the burden of polygamy. Yes, polygamy was a burden. The prophet Joseph Smith, the modern-day founder of the LDS church and institutor of polygamy in the church, ignored revelation from God for at least one full year to start polygamy. He was afraid of it so much that only on threat of godly wrath did he finally make the revelation public and start the practice. So, no, the LDS church does not believe society should be founded on polygamy; rather, marriage should be protected and guarded. In the Book of Mormon, Jacob Chapter 2 to be exact, a prophet chastises the people about having multiple wives, saying they should only have one wife. This prophet then quotes the Lord, saying “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” To restate, since marriage is instituted by God, God has the right to say when it is appropriate for polygamy to be in practice, but otherwise, one wife only. We also have a good reason for polygamy, to “raise up seed unto (God),” but even then, it is sacred and guarded and only practiced by an extreme few of the most honest and pure men. Anyone truly raised LDS should know this.
Some say same-sex attraction is natural. To that I pose this question. If the whole human race, every last person, practiced same-sex attraction, how many generations would it take for the human race to become extinct? The answer must be one. One generation of no babies being born — since two men cannot biologically have children and two women cannot biologically have children, anything other than a man impregnating a woman would be unnatural, therefore disallowed in this scenario — is all it would take to cause the human race to not replace its dead with enough babies to sustain population. I see nothing natural about that. A species that causes its own extinction definitely deserves what it gets.